Letter To A Stupid Atheist
Sound of Trumpet
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=letter_to_a_stupid_atheist&ns=MaryGrabar&dt=02/18/2007&page=full&comments=true
Letter to a Stupid Atheist
By Mary Grabar
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Mary Grabar graduated from the University of Georgia with a Ph.D. in
English and currently teaches at a university in Atlanta.
Dear Sam Harris:
I hope you don't mind that I've adapted the title of your bestselling
pamphlet bound between two hard covers and foisted on to an ignorant
public as a book. Of course, I am referring to your pretentious Letter
to a Christian Nation.
In this little polemic you take the liberty of directly addressing
those like me who believe in the divinity of Christ and in the truth
of Bible. Your primary charge against me is holding thoughts and
beliefs that do not square with yours. You do show some mercy and
leniency toward those you deem moderate and liberal-those vaguely
Unitarian, who believe Christ was a cool dude, with some nice ideas,
who would have gone to peace marches--but not much more. I take your
upbraiding personally, as I think you intend.
My letter is addressed also to those who fall into the category you
do. I have seen them-biologists with visibly rising blood pressure at
college debates, writers of angry rhetoric in "humanist" magazines,
bitter middle-aged men still chasing skirts, and one college sophomore
who stands out in my memory among the hundreds of students I have
taught over the years.
I can't remember the young man's name, but I'll call him Sammy. Since
the class was a survey class on early British literature we couldn't
avoid reading distinctly Christian literature, like religious poetry
and mystery plays.
Sammy sat towards the back of the class. He was bright and articulate
and I believe he earned at least a B. Away from parents who apparently
sent him to church most Sundays, Sammy was feeling his oats amidst
30,000-plus students, and the professors from whom he took up the
challenge to think "outside the box." He prided himself on his
independence of thought, and like you, revisited the Bible. He found
it did not square with what he was learning in Biology 101.
Like many liberals he assumed the mantle of bravery by speaking out in
class. He 'spoke to power'-the ultimate power you might say. (But we
know who else did that; he figures prominently in a poem by John
Milton.) So whenever we came to a passage that alluded to religious
faith Sammy would add to class discussion by declaring it "poppycock."
He boldly used the same word on papers.
I tried to be charitable. I asked Sammy to address the concerns in
more scholarly language. I marked his papers for diction. ("Poppycock"
is too colloquial, I wrote.) I asked him to reconsider his assessment
of all Christians as stupid and bad.
I thus avoided getting into a heated debate on religion in that public
university, a place where the only debates on religion allowed in the
classroom are about the various degrees to which Christians are wrong,
stupid, and bad.
This young man, like you, Sam Harris, put his faith in science. I
believe that he, like you, equated goodness with the absence of
suffering. Although he carried a pinched, sour expression, he did not
strike me as anyone who would deliberately harm another. He probably
was a vegetarian.
Mr. Harris, you charge us Christians with holding back scientific
research on stem cells that you insist could alleviate suffering. You
charge us with crimes against humanity by our concern over
"blastocysts," clumps of cells, unable to feel pain, much less
consciousness--according to science. Indeed, you present all the
progress of science up to this point in the twenty-first century as
the model that should replace religion, which you call superstition,
as the basis for ethics. Use science to help humanity is your cry.
But this was a motto used throughout the twentieth century by other
"bold" thinkers who thought for themselves; there were many around in
the 1930s. I don't want to charge you with plagiarism, but I have not
found one statement in your little tract that differs in any way from
their points of argument.
You seem to put an incredible amount of faith in science, Mr. Harris.
But many before you did too. Were you aware that at one time a group
of scientists fancied themselves on the cutting edge for their belief
in the science of phrenology, or the assessment of character by skull
size, shape, and topology? These men presented scientific papers on
their clinical work, which involved fondling and measuring skulls. I
am quite surprised, Mr. Harris, that you would put so much faith in an
endeavor whose base of knowledge changes on a daily basis. Think back
to all the scientific theories of even a decade ago that have been
surpassed. Think about how we scoff at the foolish scientific ideas of
our father's and grandfather's times.
You have a degree in philosophy, I see, but were you aware that
science as a mode of thought came about through monotheism? You see,
the idea of a single creator made it possible for human beings to view
creation as separate from spirit. And thus humanity advanced from one
that believed that spirits lived in trees and rocks to one that
believed that one Creator created this intricately marvelous world we
live in. The scientific endeavor then became one where individuals
observed and studied various aspects of this creation. That is called
science.
That is what was presented to my son's Cub Scout troop by a chemistry
professor and a Christian (and not of the moderate or liberal
persuasion of your approved list). After amazing the boys and
fulfilling their natural little-boy pyromania proclivities with shows
of bubbles, bangs, and mini-explosions over Bunsen burners, the
professor presented them this carry-away thought: though they might be
impressed by the magic that he performed they should remember the
greater magic that made all that possible to begin with.
I thought you might enjoy that little story, Mr. Harris.
And since science changes, or as you like to think, progresses, I
wonder what you would say if science, forty years from now, when you
are nearing 80, would find some use in the cells or organs of 80-year-
old men for the benefit of those much younger and of more use to
society?
You feel that an ethical system can be based on the feelings of
empathy that have evolved in us. You share your colleague Peter
Singer's view. Singer, Ira DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton
University, gushes with sympathy for little piglets-to the point where
he thinks the healthy ones should be allowed to live, while the
handicapped month-old baby should be put out of its misery. He begins
his argument, as he necessarily must, by doing away with Biblical
principles and law: the idea that we are formed in God's image, and
therefore are above animals. He, like you, thinks that Christian
proscriptions-like those against killing babies or having sex with
animals--are just so much "poppycock."
You answer your critics about the atheism of twentieth-century
dictators: "Christians like yourself," you write, "invariably declare
that monsters like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot,
and Kim Il Sung spring from the womb of atheism. While it is true that
such men are sometimes enemies of organized religion, they are never
especially rational."
But would you hold up Professor Singer as an example of a rational
person? How about the other respected professionals-the doctors and
professors--who wrote academic and policy papers on their new-found
procedures of gassing "idiots" and "imbeciles" in Germany? The method
went through its testing phase in teaching hospitals on subjects who
were too young or too retarded to be deemed rational enough to "live a
life worth living." Hitler then grasped onto this idea of "scientific
advancement" and applied the procedure on a massive scale to other
groups, as we know. While you deem Hitler "delusional," what about the
doctors who gassed three-year-olds? What about Professor Singer, who
feels that euthanasia is appropriate for infants-if their parents make
that "choice"?
What words of comfort would you give to the father of the three-year-
old child dying from leukemia (as some, in spite of the advances of
science, still do). Would you advise him to euthanize the child to
prevent suffering (being as tender-hearted as you are)? Would you
explain that this is natural selection?
You pride yourself on your belief in equality, in democracy, and point
to the "barbarism" of the Old Testament in its treatment of women and
slaves (though you didn't bother to research the translation of the
term "slave" from a more general one meaning "servant" and the
Biblical reference to slavery as an historical fact that Christians
had to deal with, and not something they promoted). But did you know
that historically Christianity was the first real democracy? Yes, even
secularists and "progressives" admit that. It is a widely accepted
historical fact.
But I notice that your little book, displayed prominently in the
bookstore chains, even among the suggested "holiday" reading of the
last Christmas season, has been flying off the tables. It entered the
New York Times bestseller list almost immediately and remains at #3 on
Publishers Weekly Religion Bestsellers.
I have seen the customers who fondled your book and read the jacket
with self-satisfied expressions. These were the ones you blessed as
"progressive" in your pages. Your condemnatory letter was not
addressed to them. Your little tome at $16.95 graces their bookshelves
along with those by Bill Moyers and the atheist authors you recommend.
These progressives proudly display their reading material as they
serve canapés and cocktails to similarly correct-minded, nipped and
Botox-ed activists, who only really just want what is good for us.
Your slim, easy-to-read pamphlet is just right for trips to the salon,
masseuse, and transcendental meditation retreat. Your fans cluck over
the ignorance and benightedness of those like me-their gold and
diamonds shining in the ambient light of their converted warehouse
condos. You amaze them with your profundity, your ability to string
together clichés and tired arguments, and in 91 small widely spaced
pages tear down the foundations of the civilization put in place by
millennia of thinkers and the Church Fathers. For your book, they
whipped out the credit cards from Louis Vitton bags.
They also paid to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and thought it
was a documentary.
William Wingstedt
<soundof...@mailcan.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=3Dletter_to_a_stupi=
>d_atheist&ns=3DMaryGrabar&dt=3D02/18/2007&page=3Dfull&comments=3Dtrue
>
>
>
>
>Letter to a Stupid Atheist
>
>By Mary Grabar
>
>Sunday, February 18, 2007
>
>
>
>Mary Grabar graduated from the University of Georgia with a Ph.D. in
>English and currently teaches at a university in Atlanta.
>
>
>
>
snip
I give it a 1. Too long and I can't dance to it.
Tom Mason
On Religion
When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to
stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated
claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the
greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually
convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches
everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a
special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of
these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning
and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn
and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money!
He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just
can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no
taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good
bullshit story. Holy Shit!
But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when
it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I
tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own
image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I
really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the
more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth,
poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is
definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I
am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a
Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp
with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run
universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time
ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at
these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.
No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a
God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least
incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a
shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad
results.
So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and
aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some
spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a shit, I decided to look
around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.
And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I
became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at
night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several
reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I
could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see
something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know?
So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat,
light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional
skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not
setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.
Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry,
no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a
special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And
the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell
me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word.
Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know
why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.
I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking
trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and
begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better
job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It's not
nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.
But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know,
your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for
defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to fuck that hot
little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the
eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And
I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about
the Divine Plan?
Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave
it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And
for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just
fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing
you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His
plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan.
What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar
prayerbook can come along and fuck up Your Plan?
And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your
prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will
Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants
to anyway, why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big
waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to
His Will? It's all very confusing.
So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I
said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two
reasons: First of all, I think he's a good actor, okay? To me, that counts.
Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't fuck
around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was
having trouble with.
For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the
barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that cocksucker out with one visit. It's
amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.
So I've been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I
noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I
now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half
the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50. Same
as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit's
foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your
fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles, it's all the same: 50-50. So just
pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.
And for those of you who look to The Bible for moral lessons and literary
qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want
to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy
ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood,
although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats
the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way. And finally, I've
always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I
like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put
Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty
Dumpty, and there is no God. None, not one, no God, never was.
In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this
audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay?
All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a
God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a
little cramp in my leg. And my balls hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh,
now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci.
Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1186694407.9...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Medusa
wrote:
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=letter_to_a_s...
Religious ideas are present in much English literatrue, but so are the
myths of the Greeks and Romans.
Sounds like this teacher has not done enough reading, or she has
skipped over the contents of much of it.
I took a Milton class in college, and my teacher made it plain that we
were not reading "Paradise Lost" for religious purposes.
Made for some arguments in class by "anti-Sammys," who insisted the
class should take the Christian religious myths as true.
BTW, if you have ever read "Paradise Lost," you can see the argument
that, in this work, Satan is one of the first "anti-heroes" in English
literature. He is one of the more interesting characters in the poem.
Medusa
LC
Mute and stupid fundy troll "Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@mailcan.com>
wrote in message
news:1186694407.9...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Letter to a Stupid Atheist
> By Mary Grabar
Shorter Mary Grabar: Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Letter to a Stupid Strumpet: Please shorten your trolls.
Waaay too verbose.
quibbler
soundof...@mailcan.com says...
> Mary Grabar graduated from the University of Georgia with a Ph.D. in
> English and currently teaches at a university in Atlanta.
Which means that she has a level of education approximately equivalent
to an associates degree in a challenging subject.
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
> Mute and stupid fundy troll "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
> wrote in messagenews:1186694407.9...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Letter to a Stupid Atheist
> > By Mary Grabar
>
> Shorter Mary Grabar: Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
>
> Letter to a Stupid Strumpet: Please shorten your trolls.
> Waaay too verbose.
The phony straw-man choice between "science" and silliness
is old. Many choose neither.
skyeyes
wrote:
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=letter_to_a_s...
>
> Letter to a Stupid Atheist
>
> By Mary Grabar
>
> Sunday, February 18, 2007
Hey, SOT, today is ***AUGUST*** 9, 2007. We were all aware of Mary
Grabar's silly screed when it came out in February.
Try to keep up, will you?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
panam...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=letter_to_a_s...
>
> Letter to a Stupid Atheist
>
> By Mary Grabar
>
> Sunday, February 18, 2007
>
> Mary Grabar graduated from the University of Georgia with a Ph.D. in
> English and currently teaches at a university in Atlanta.
>
> Dear Sam Harris:
>
> I hope you don't mind that I've adapted the title of your bestselling
> pamphlet bound between two hard covers and foisted on to an ignorant
> public as a book. Of course, I am referring to your pretentious Letter
> to a Christian Nation.
Shaddap, crybaby. Don't you have a Big Mac to eat or a cousin to kiss?
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
eel...@gmail.com
wrote:
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=letter_to_a_s...
>
>
> read more »
I do not beleive you are an English professor. If you are, you
probably work at Liberty University.
CE
> George Carlin
> On Religion
>
> When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to
> stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated
> claims, religion.
George Carlin? You're basing your life philosophy on a comedian made
famous for a routine about a list of bad words?
satyr
<soundof...@mailcan.com> wrote:
>
>Letter to a Stupid Atheist
>
>By Mary Grabar
>
>Sunday, February 18, 2007
>
>
>
>Mary Grabar graduated from the University of Georgia with a Ph.D. in
>English and currently teaches at a university in Atlanta.
>
>
>
>
>Dear Sam Harris:
>
>I hope you don't mind that I've adapted the title of your bestselling
>pamphlet bound between two hard covers and foisted on to an ignorant
>public as a book. Of course, I am referring to your pretentious Letter
>to a Christian Nation.
This is so funny I am almost tempted to read it. Mary Graber, PhD and
University Professor of English at Clayton State University seeks to
rebut a best-selling book with a pissy, whining screed.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
Scott H
a thoughtful exchange of ideas. I'm personally very upset that a
Christian would write with such animosity, but I believe she was just
angry.
Sid9
He's more honest than any TV preacher I have ever seen
Santolina chamaecyparissus
wrote:
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=letter_to_a_s...
>
> Letter to a Stupid Atheist
>
>
>... those like me who believe in the divinity of Christ
Another one who vomits all over the religion she professes to believe
in. Is there one under every rock?
Sara Brum
news:1186703474.8...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You'd rather base your life philosophy on a bunch of bronze-age nomads made
famous for a routine about a list of self-serving commandments purported to
be from their invisible friend who's gonna getcha if you don't blindly
follow them?
CE
> "CE" <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
No. Not on them. On Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour. You should
check into Him. He's awesome.
Michael Gray
wrote:
>On Aug 9, 2:20 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
>wrote:
>> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=letter_to_a_s...
>>
>> Letter to a Stupid Atheist
>>
>> By Mary Grabar
>>
>> Sunday, February 18, 2007
>
>Hey, SOT, today is ***AUGUST*** 9, 2007. We were all aware of Mary
>Grabar's silly screed when it came out in February.
>
>Try to keep up, will you?
I'm surprised it was not dated 1867.
SOT is not know for her ability to read.
Free Lunch
CE <jlri...@gmail.com> wrote in
<1186710348.2...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
And, nonexistent if you go by the evidence.
Michael Gray
wrote:
Christian's are all insults and threats when confronting reality.
She has a very good reason to be angry: with herself, for falling for
a giant load of infantile crap.
Enkidu
news:1186703474.8...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
A better question is, "Is George Carlin right?" I do believe he is.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never
inconvenienced me a bit.
-- Mark Twain
Daniel Kolle
<soundof...@mailcan.com> wrote:
<snip>
Y'know, I was *all* prepared to write a devastation retort--A Retort
to a Dumb Bitch. Alas, I was not up to the task.
Pastor Dave
<sarabrum@medulla.cöm> spoke thusly:
Self serving commandments? You mean like don't have sex
outside of marriage? Yea, that's really self serving.
<chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave
When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
raven1
<soundof...@mailcan.com> wrote:
>I tried to be charitable. I asked Sammy to address the concerns in
>more scholarly language. I marked his papers for diction. ("Poppycock"
>is too colloquial, I wrote.) I asked him to reconsider his assessment
>of all Christians as stupid and bad.
He was probably just reacting to her example, and "poppycock" is a
perfect description of this article.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Geoff
Apparently, you haven't seen anything by him in 35 years. Get with it!
parsi...@gmail.com
Are you aware that you're also posting to a discussion group called
"alt.atheism"?
Baldin Lee Pramer
wrote:
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=letter_to_a_s...
>
> Letter to a Stupid Atheist
>
> By Mary Grabar
>
> Sunday, February 18, 2007
>
> English and currently teaches at a university in Atlanta.
>
> Dear Sam Harris:
>
> I hope you don't mind that I've adapted the title of your bestselling
> pamphlet bound between two hard covers and foisted on to an ignorant
> public as a book. Of course, I am referring to your pretentious Letter
> to a Christian Nation.
What an inauspicious beginning. The rest is no better. Why did you
bother posting this weak piece of tripe??
BLP
chazwin
wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:20:07 -0700, Sound of Trumpet
>
>
>
>
>
> <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=3Dletter_to_a...
> >d_atheist&ns=3DMaryGrabar&dt=3D02/18/2007&page=3Dfull&comments=3Dtrue
>
> >Letter to a Stupid Atheist
>
> >By Mary Grabar
>
> >Sunday, February 18, 2007
>
> >Mary Grabar graduated from the University of Georgia with a Ph.D. in
> >English and currently teaches at a university in Atlanta.
>
>
> I give it a 1. Too long and I can't dance to it.- Hide quoted text -
>
There is a new philosophy NG in which this sort of spam is not
allowed.
"philosophise" welcomes reasoned debate and no irrelevant stuff.
Get it a try!
John Baker
If you reject science, you've chosen silliness by default.
John Baker
So is a large pizza with everything. And the pizza has the added
advantage of actually existing.
Robibnikoff
"Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.cöm> wrote in message
news:omPui.17762$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Believe me, George Carlin makes a LOT more sense.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Michael Gray
He's bloody imaginary, you mental midget.
Michael Gray
And he exists.
Michael Gray
>CE <jlri...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:1186703474.8...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Aug 9, 6:43 pm, "Tom Mason" <tm...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>> George Carlin
>>> On Religion
>>>
>>> When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have
>>> to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and
>>> exaggerated claims, religion.
>>
>> George Carlin? You're basing your life philosophy on a comedian made
>> famous for a routine about a list of bad words?
>
>A better question is, "Is George Carlin right?" I do believe he is.
Oh no! There you go bringing 'reality' into it.
CE abhors reality.
And logic.
Oh, and the truth.
And evidence.
And learning.
And adulthood.
Michael Gray
wrote:
Unless you have a mental age of less than three, like 'CE'.
Michael Gray
Do you really think that a repulsive moron like SOT has anything
better to do?
He can't even whack-off because his right hand won't have anything to
do with him.
bob young
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=letter_to_a_stupid_atheist&ns=MaryGrabar&dt=02/18/2007&page=full&comments=true
Letter to a Stupid Atheist
By Mary Grabar
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Mary Grabar graduated from the University of Georgia with a Ph.D. in
English and currently teaches at a university in Atlanta.
are terrified of atheists and see them as a threat to their mythology.
Whereas in fact all they need to do is to produce their god
and we atheists will all disappear in a puff of smoke.
I'm not holding my breath.
Strange isn't it, followers of a belief structure, the head of which
is supposed to have created everything
get nervous about atheists.
Does that make ANY sense?
Or is there a feeling that by debasing one group of Thinkers the Non Thinker's god will suddenly become a reality?
Some inward thinking is long overdue here, or is it the blinkers [blinders] they love to wear that causes these aberrations?
Bob
Humanist Brit.
In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost
every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities
who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken
them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them
were not worth a brass farthing.
[Mark Twain]
Dear Sam Harris:
I hope you don't mind that I've adapted the title of your bestselling
pamphlet bound between two hard covers and foisted on to an ignorant
public as a book. Of course, I am referring to your pretentious Letter
to a Christian Nation.
In this little polemic you take the liberty of directly addressing
those like me who believe in the divinity of Christ and in the truth
of Bible. Your primary charge against me is holding thoughts and
beliefs that do not square with yours. You do show some mercy and
leniency toward those you deem moderate and liberal-those vaguely
Unitarian, who believe Christ was a cool dude, with some nice ideas,
who would have gone to peace marches--but not much more. I take your
upbraiding personally, as I think you intend.My letter is addressed also to those who fall into the category you
do. I have seen them-biologists with visibly rising blood pressure at
college debates, writers of angry rhetoric in "humanist" magazines,
bitter middle-aged men still chasing skirts, and one college sophomore
who stands out in my memory among the hundreds of students I have
taught over the years.I can't remember the young man's name, but I'll call him Sammy. Since
the class was a survey class on early British literature we couldn't
avoid reading distinctly Christian literature, like religious poetry
and mystery plays.Sammy sat towards the back of the class. He was bright and articulate
and I believe he earned at least a B. Away from parents who apparently
sent him to church most Sundays, Sammy was feeling his oats amidst
30,000-plus students, and the professors from whom he took up the
challenge to think "outside the box." He prided himself on his
independence of thought, and like you, revisited the Bible. He found
it did not square with what he was learning in Biology 101.Like many liberals he assumed the mantle of bravery by speaking out in
class. He 'spoke to power'-the ultimate power you might say. (But we
know who else did that; he figures prominently in a poem by John
Milton.) So whenever we came to a passage that alluded to religious
faith Sammy would add to class discussion by declaring it "poppycock."
He boldly used the same word on papers.
I tried to be charitable. I asked Sammy to address the concerns in
more scholarly language. I marked his papers for diction. ("Poppycock"
is too colloquial, I wrote.) I asked him to reconsider his assessment
of all Christians as stupid and bad.
I thus avoided getting into a heated debate on religion in that public
university, a place where the only debates on religion allowed in the
classroom are about the various degrees to which Christians are wrong,
stupid, and bad.This young man, like you, Sam Harris, put his faith in science. I
believe that he, like you, equated goodness with the absence of
suffering. Although he carried a pinched, sour expression, he did not
strike me as anyone who would deliberately harm another. He probably
was a vegetarian.Mr. Harris, you charge us Christians with holding back scientific
research on stem cells that you insist could alleviate suffering. You
charge us with crimes against humanity by our concern over
"blastocysts," clumps of cells, unable to feel pain, much less
consciousness--according to science. Indeed, you present all the
progress of science up to this point in the twenty-first century as
the model that should replace religion, which you call superstition,
as the basis for ethics. Use science to help humanity is your cry.But this was a motto used throughout the twentieth century by other
"bold" thinkers who thought for themselves; there were many around in
the 1930s. I don't want to charge you with plagiarism, but I have not
found one statement in your little tract that differs in any way from
their points of argument.You seem to put an incredible amount of faith in science, Mr. Harris.
But many before you did too. Were you aware that at one time a group
of scientists fancied themselves on the cutting edge for their belief
in the science of phrenology, or the assessment of character by skull
size, shape, and topology? These men presented scientific papers on
their clinical work, which involved fondling and measuring skulls. I
am quite surprised, Mr. Harris, that you would put so much faith in an
endeavor whose base of knowledge changes on a daily basis. Think back
to all the scientific theories of even a decade ago that have been
surpassed. Think about how we scoff at the foolish scientific ideas of
our father's and grandfather's times.You have a degree in philosophy, I see, but were you aware that
science as a mode of thought came about through monotheism? You see,
the idea of a single creator made it possible for human beings to view
creation as separate from spirit. And thus humanity advanced from one
that believed that spirits lived in trees and rocks to one that
believed that one Creator created this intricately marvelous world we
live in. The scientific endeavor then became one where individuals
observed and studied various aspects of this creation. That is called
science.That is what was presented to my son's Cub Scout troop by a chemistry
professor and a Christian (and not of the moderate or liberal
persuasion of your approved list). After amazing the boys and
fulfilling their natural little-boy pyromania proclivities with shows
of bubbles, bangs, and mini-explosions over Bunsen burners, the
professor presented them this carry-away thought: though they might be
impressed by the magic that he performed they should remember the
greater magic that made all that possible to begin with.I thought you might enjoy that little story, Mr. Harris.
And since science changes, or as you like to think, progresses, I
wonder what you would say if science, forty years from now, when you
are nearing 80, would find some use in the cells or organs of 80-year-
old men for the benefit of those much younger and of more use to
society?You feel that an ethical system can be based on the feelings of
empathy that have evolved in us. You share your colleague Peter
Singer's view. Singer, Ira DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton
University, gushes with sympathy for little piglets-to the point where
he thinks the healthy ones should be allowed to live, while the
handicapped month-old baby should be put out of its misery. He begins
his argument, as he necessarily must, by doing away with Biblical
principles and law: the idea that we are formed in God's image, and
therefore are above animals. He, like you, thinks that Christian
proscriptions-like those against killing babies or having sex with
animals--are just so much "poppycock."You answer your critics about the atheism of twentieth-century
dictators: "Christians like yourself," you write, "invariably declare
that monsters like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot,
and Kim Il Sung spring from the womb of atheism. While it is true that
such men are sometimes enemies of organized religion, they are never
especially rational."But would you hold up Professor Singer as an example of a rational
person? How about the other respected professionals-the doctors and
professors--who wrote academic and policy papers on their new-found
procedures of gassing "idiots" and "imbeciles" in Germany? The method
went through its testing phase in teaching hospitals on subjects who
were too young or too retarded to be deemed rational enough to "live a
life worth living." Hitler then grasped onto this idea of "scientific
advancement" and applied the procedure on a massive scale to other
groups, as we know. While you deem Hitler "delusional," what about the
doctors who gassed three-year-olds? What about Professor Singer, who
feels that euthanasia is appropriate for infants-if their parents make
that "choice"?What words of comfort would you give to the father of the three-year-
old child dying from leukemia (as some, in spite of the advances of
science, still do). Would you advise him to euthanize the child to
prevent suffering (being as tender-hearted as you are)? Would you
explain that this is natural selection?You pride yourself on your belief in equality, in democracy, and point
to the "barbarism" of the Old Testament in its treatment of women and
slaves (though you didn't bother to research the translation of the
term "slave" from a more general one meaning "servant" and the
Biblical reference to slavery as an historical fact that Christians
had to deal with, and not something they promoted). But did you know
that historically Christianity was the first real democracy? Yes, even
secularists and "progressives" admit that. It is a widely accepted
historical fact.But I notice that your little book, displayed prominently in the
bookstore chains, even among the suggested "holiday" reading of the
last Christmas season, has been flying off the tables. It entered the
New York Times bestseller list almost immediately and remains at #3 on
Publishers Weekly Religion Bestsellers.I have seen the customers who fondled your book and read the jacket
with self-satisfied expressions. These were the ones you blessed as
"progressive" in your pages. Your condemnatory letter was not
addressed to them. Your little tome at $16.95 graces their bookshelves
along with those by Bill Moyers and the atheist authors you recommend.
These progressives proudly display their reading material as they
serve canapιs and cocktails to similarly correct-minded, nipped and
Botox-ed activists, who only really just want what is good for us.
Your slim, easy-to-read pamphlet is just right for trips to the salon,
masseuse, and transcendental meditation retreat. Your fans cluck over
the ignorance and benightedness of those like me-their gold and
diamonds shining in the ambient light of their converted warehouse
condos. You amaze them with your profundity, your ability to string
together clichιs and tired arguments, and in 91 small widely spaced
pages tear down the foundations of the civilization put in place by
millennia of thinkers and the Church Fathers. For your book, they
whipped out the credit cards from Louis Vitton bags.They also paid to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and thought it
was a documentary.
Peter Barber
> <snip>
There are so many fallacies in Mary Grabar's essay that it would take
an article of ten times the length to address them all - but what
particularly amuses me is this:
> your bestselling
> pamphlet bound between two hard covers and foisted on to an ignorant
> public as a book.
And this:
> this little polemic
Oh, and this:
> your little book
And while you're here, these as well:
> Your little tome
> Your slim, easy-to-read pamphlet
> in 91 small widely spaced pages
Now, since when was being concise or accessible something to be
avoided in a book on a thorny and complex subject aimed at the general
reader? And if it is such bad practice, why did Grabar choose to reply
in a little, easy-to-read essay of less than 2000 words?
Maybe Grabar is just incensed that Harris dares to criticise the
absurdities of American Christianity, and the harmful behaviour it
encourages or condones. Or maybe she is worried that Harris' book is
all too easy to understand, and therefore convincing.
Geoff
There goes my diet. Thanks for that.
Mark K. Bilbo
Checked into him, found no evidence he existed...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"How come God gets credit whenever something good happens? Where was he
when her heart stopped?"
- Dr. House
Raymond
Everyone, especially when they were young, had an imginary friend.
However, most people grow out of that childish nonsense and move on to
reality. However, some slower witted souls just don't progress and
still talk to their imaginary friends. Have you watched the 700 Club?.
Oy Vey! People even send money to their imaginary friends.
An imaginary friend is an invented person, animal, or character that
is created especially by children , but sometimes by adults. ... The
inventor will act as if the imaginary being is physically present by
talking to it, playing with it, or even attempting to feed it. If told
that the friend is non-existent, the inventor will often retaliate in
a defensive manner by stating that the imaginary friend is invisible.
Having imaginary friends at an advanced age may be caused by mental,
organic, or drug-related states such as psychedelic drugs, autism or
schizophrenia. However, the development of imaginary friends by a
person does not alone necessarily signify a problem or disorder.
According to the DSM-IV, imaginary friends are classified as a
psychological disorder only if they interfere with everyday social
interactions..like praying outloud in a theater or while playing bingo
at the local Catholic Church on Friday night.
According to some theories of psychology an understanding of a child's
conversations with their imaginary friends can reveal a lot about the
anxieties and fears of that child as well as the child's aspirations
and perception of the world. Some children report that their
"imaginary friends" manifest themselves physically, and are
indistinguishable from "real" people.
According to psychological research, most children dismiss the
imaginary friend once they find living ones or become aware that it is
fictional.
Let us prey.
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:40:36 GMT, "Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.cöm>
> spoke thusly:
>
>
>>"CE" <jlri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1186703474.8...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Aug 9, 6:43 pm, "Tom Mason" <tm...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> George Carlin
>>>> On Religion
>>>>
>>>> When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have
>>>> to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and
>>>> exaggerated claims, religion.
>>>
>>> George Carlin? You're basing your life philosophy on a comedian made
>>> famous for a routine about a list of bad words?
>>
>>You'd rather base your life philosophy on a bunch of bronze-age nomads
>>made famous for a routine about a list of self-serving commandments
>>purported to be from their invisible friend who's gonna getcha if you
>>don't blindly follow them?
>
> Self serving commandments? You mean like don't have sex outside of
> marriage? Yea, that's really self serving. <chuckle>
It is in a day when women were treated like property and you got the best
price when you kept the goodies fresh.
Not to mention, in a polygamous society (and they were), no sex outside
of marriage benefits the wealthy who can have, oh, how many wives and
whores did "king David" have?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Arrogance has to be earned. Tell me what you've done to earn yours."
- Dr. House
les_on_usenet
According to Josephus (which my wife is just reading) Herod had ten
and that was quite normal then.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Robibnikoff
"Michael Gray" <mike...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gp9ob3h8k86c8p7qr...@4ax.com...
True' dat. I saw him in concert once ;)
Mark K. Bilbo
Exactly. And the wealthy, when they go shopping, don't buy used...
Larry Heath
On Aug 9, 10:40 pm, "Sara Brum" <sarab...@medulla.cöm> wrote:
>
> news:1186703474.8...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 9, 6:43 pm, "Tom Mason" <tm...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> >> George Carlin
> >> On Religion
>
> >> When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to
> >> stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated
> >> claims, religion.
>
> > George Carlin? You're basing your life philosophy on a comedian made
> > famous for a routine about a list of bad words?
>
> You'd rather base your life philosophy on a bunch of bronze-age nomads
> made
> famous for a routine about a list of self-serving commandments purported
> to
> be from their invisible friend who's gonna getcha if you don't blindly
> follow them?
No. Not on them. On Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour. You should
check into Him. He's awesome.
The only thing awesome about Jesus Christ, is the awesome stupidity
nessacary to beleve in such myths as reality.
--
Later Larry
aa #2216
Plonked by Fred Stone, 17 May 2006
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed
to ignore totally all the patient findings of thinking minds through all
the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant
people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking
among us who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all, who
would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us, who would invade
our schools and libraries and homes.
- Isaac Asimov
Ferrous Patella
>
> Self serving commandments? You mean like don't have sex
> outside of marriage? Yea, that's really self serving.
> <chuckle>
>
Yep. It makes sure that the kids you feed are your own.
--
"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."
Annual English Teachers' awards for best student
metaphors/analogies found in actual student papers
Geoff
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:40:36 GMT, "Sara Brum"
> <sarabrum@medulla.cöm> spoke thusly:
>
>
>> "CE" <jlri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1186703474.8...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Aug 9, 6:43 pm, "Tom Mason" <tm...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> George Carlin
>>>> On Religion
>>>>
>>>> When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you
>>>> have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises
>>>> and exaggerated claims, religion.
>>>
>>> George Carlin? You're basing your life philosophy on a comedian made
>>> famous for a routine about a list of bad words?
>>
>> You'd rather base your life philosophy on a bunch of bronze-age
>> nomads made famous for a routine about a list of self-serving
>> commandments purported to be from their invisible friend who's gonna
>> getcha if you don't blindly follow them?
>
> Self serving commandments? You mean like don't have sex
> outside of marriage? Yea, that's really self serving.
> <chuckle>
LOL...you walked right into that one, idiot.
Rockinghorse Winner
> And, nonexistent if you go by the evidence.
what evidence would you like?
*R* *H*
--
If only one of [47]Charles Chaplin's films could be preserved, ``City
Lights'' (1931) would come the closest to representing all the
different notes of his genius. -Roger Ebert
Free Lunch
Rockinghorse Winner <rockin...@deadtime.com> wrote in
<slrnfc1ssm.4t...@deadtime.com>:
>In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Free Lunch had the audacity to say that:
>
>> And, nonexistent if you go by the evidence.
>
>what evidence would you like?
Any. There is no evidence of a godlike human named Jesus.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
wrote:
> In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Free Lunch had the audacity to say that:
>
> > And, nonexistent if you go by the evidence.
>
> what evidence would you like?
>
I'm still waiting for that Radio Flyer I asked for about forty years
ago.
Christopher A.Lee
<rockin...@deadtime.com> wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Free Lunch had the audacity to say that:
>
>> And, nonexistent if you go by the evidence.
>
>what evidence would you like?
Not our problem, dishonest theist who tried to shift the burden.
What part of "anything that points inescapably to it as a conclusion"
are you pretending you are too stupid to understand?
After all, you are the one claiming you have this evidence.
We're not mind readers to know what you've got.
Or are you lying about having it?
Just like all the other believers who used the same cop out that fools
nobody, not even yourself.
>*R* *H*
Rockinghorse Winner
> On 14 Aug 2007 00:59:56 GMT, in alt.atheism
> Rockinghorse Winner <rockin...@deadtime.com> wrote in
><slrnfc1ssm.4t...@deadtime.com>:
>>In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Free Lunch had the audacity to say that:
>>
>>> And, nonexistent if you go by the evidence.
>>
>>what evidence would you like?
>
> Any. There is no evidence of a godlike human named Jesus.
So, if you saw God, say, with your own eyes, you would believe in him?
Virgil
Rockinghorse Winner <rockin...@deadtime.com> wrote:
> > Any. There is no evidence of a godlike human named Jesus.
>
> So, if you saw God, say, with your own eyes, you would believe in him?
I might believe in her, but not him.
Rockinghorse Winner
:)
--
If only one of Charles Chaplin's films could be preserved, ``City
Michael Gray
<rockin...@deadtime.com> wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Free Lunch had the audacity to say that:
>
>> And, nonexistent if you go by the evidence.
>
>what evidence would you like?
>
>*R* *H*
<James Dean mode>
What you got, punk?
Michael Gray
<rockin...@deadtime.com> wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Free Lunch had the audacity to say that:
>
>> On 14 Aug 2007 00:59:56 GMT, in alt.atheism
>> Rockinghorse Winner <rockin...@deadtime.com> wrote in
>><slrnfc1ssm.4t...@deadtime.com>:
>>>In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Free Lunch had the audacity to say that:
>>>
>>>> And, nonexistent if you go by the evidence.
>>>
>>>what evidence would you like?
>>
>> Any. There is no evidence of a godlike human named Jesus.
>
>So, if you saw God, say, with your own eyes, you would believe in him?
Define 'god' first.
Is it YHWH?
Is it Buddha?
Is it Athena?
Is it The Rainbow Serpent?
....
etc etc etc..
Hatt...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:40:36 GMT, "Sara Brum"
>
>
>
>
>
> >"CE" <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1186703474.8...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Aug 9, 6:43 pm, "Tom Mason" <tm...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> >>> GeorgeCarlin
> >>> On Religion
>
> >>> When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to
> >>> stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated
> >>> claims, religion.
>
> >> famous for a routine about a list of bad words?
>
> >You'd rather base your life philosophy on a bunch of bronze-age nomads made
> >famous for a routine about a list of self-serving commandments purported to
> >be from their invisible friend who's gonna getcha if you don't blindly
> >follow them?
>
> Self serving commandments? You mean like don't have sex
> outside of marriage? Yea, that's really self serving.
> <chuckle>
>
proscription against premarital sex helps to produce a structured,
docile, domestic population. This population you also want to have as
many children as possible(within faimlies that rear them and reinforce
the domestic docile structure) As a tyrant you also want people to
fear an all cop that can see everything.
Gee isn't a coincidence that the big three religions just happen to
have the exact attributes that would best serve a tyrant.
Hatter
Hatt...@gmail.com
>
> > Letter to a Stupid Atheist
>
> > By Mary Grabar
>
> > Sunday, February 18, 2007
>
> > Mary Grabar graduated from the University of Georgia with a Ph.D. in
> > English and currently teaches at a university in Atlanta.
>
> It must be patently obvious to any clear thinking individual that religionists
> are terrified of atheists and see them as a threat to their mythology.
>
> Whereas in fact all they need to do is to produce their god
> and we atheists will all disappear in a puff of smoke.
>
> I'm not holding my breath.
>
> Strange isn't it, followers of a belief structure, the head of which is supposed to have created everything
> get nervous about atheists.
>
> Does that make ANY sense?
>
> Or is there a feeling that by debasing one group of Thinkers the Non Thinker's god will suddenly become a reality?
>
afraid, deep down, that this God thing is Bullshit, and that any
breeze may knock over the house of cards. Since theism is based on
irrationality....rationality is not a good tool for its defence; they
know this also. Therefore an irrational defence of an irrational
concept is the best for their circumstance.
Hatter
Pastor Dave
wrote:
>> >You'd rather base your life philosophy on a bunch of bronze-age nomads made
>> >famous for a routine about a list of self-serving commandments purported to
>> >be from their invisible friend who's gonna getcha if you don't blindly
>> >follow them?
>>
>> Self serving commandments? You mean like don't have sex
>> outside of marriage? Yea, that's really self serving.
>> <chuckle>
>
>When you are the powers that be....yes...it serves you well.
You tell yourself whatever you need to. :)
>A proscription against premarital sex helps to produce a structured,
>docile, domestic population.
Really? Isn't it interesting then that people tend to get
frustrated instead and liberals like you tell us how they're
going to have sex anyway, thereby creating lots of
pregnant young girls and fatherless children.
Yea, that's real "docile".
As I said, you tell yourself whatever you need to,
to sell this to yourself.
Hatter
> As I said, you tell yourself whatever you need to,
> to sell this to yourself.
Snnerrkk....that what I say about this god thing. Keep telling it to
yourself...keep wishing...it still isn't true
It just happen to serve tyrants well. You are blind not to see it.
Hatter
Free Lunch
>In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Free Lunch had the audacity to say that:
>
>> On 14 Aug 2007 00:59:56 GMT, in alt.atheism
>> Rockinghorse Winner <rockin...@deadtime.com> wrote in
>><slrnfc1ssm.4t...@deadtime.com>:
>>>In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Free Lunch had the audacity to say that:
>>>
>>>> And, nonexistent if you go by the evidence.
>>>
>>>what evidence would you like?
>>
>> Any. There is no evidence of a godlike human named Jesus.
>
>So, if you saw God, say, with your own eyes, you would believe in him?
Why not? If there were any evidence, it would have to be considered, but
there is none.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
wrote:
> In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Free Lunch had the audacity to say that:
>
> > On 14 Aug 2007 00:59:56 GMT, in alt.atheism
> ><slrnfc1ssm.4tm.rockingho...@deadtime.com>:
> >>In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Free Lunch had the audacity to say that:
>
> >>> And, nonexistent if you go by the evidence.
>
> >>what evidence would you like?
>
> > Any. There is no evidence of a godlike human named Jesus.
>
> So, if you saw God, say, with your own eyes, you would believe in him?
>
Look, I'm not asking for water into wine or making the blind see. All
I want is a fucking Radio Flyer.
chazwin
John Baker
Therion Ware
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:24:12 -0400, John Baker wrote in message
<r2s5c3trq4li53mpq...@4ax.com>:
Marion Davies !
--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
attrib: Pauline Réage.
-
www.eac-nudis.com = Evil Atheist Conspiracy NNTP / Usenet Distributed Intelligence System...
•R L Measures
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> On Aug 15, 4:01 am,Santolinachamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
Are you God? No wonder I didn't get it.
Hatter
wrote:
> Letter to a Stupid Atheist
> By Mary Grabar
> Sunday, February 18, 2007
Lets count the lies, misrepresentations, and logical fallices, shall
we?
> Dear Sam Harris:
> I hope you don't mind that I've adapted the title of your bestselling
> pamphlet bound between two hard covers and foisted on to an ignorant
> public as a book. Of course, I am referring to your pretentious Letter
> to a Christian Nation.
Lets start off with an ad hom, redifining the word "foisted" and
redefine "book"
thats 3
> In this little polemic you take the liberty of directly addressing
> those like me who believe in the divinity of Christ and in the truth
> of Bible. Your primary charge against me is holding thoughts and
> beliefs that do not square with yours. You do show some mercy and
> leniency toward those you deem moderate and liberal-those vaguely
> Unitarian, who believe Christ was a cool dude, with some nice ideas,
> who would have gone to peace marches--but not much more. I take your
> upbraiding personally, as I think you intend.
> My letter is addressed also to those who fall into the category you
> do. I have seen them-biologists with visibly rising blood pressure at
> college debates, writers of angry rhetoric in "humanist" magazines,
> bitter middle-aged men still chasing skirts, and one college sophomore
> who stands out in my memory among the hundreds of students I have
> taught over the years.
So Ad Hom again against a class, with three unsubstatiable vairous
attacks
and just the start of a strawman: brings the total to seven
> I can't remember the young man's name, but I'll call him Sammy. Since
> the class was a survey class on early British literature we couldn't
> avoid reading distinctly Christian literature, like religious poetry
> and mystery plays.
> Sammy sat towards the back of the class. He was bright and articulate
> and I believe he earned at least a B. Away from parents who apparently
> sent him to church most Sundays, Sammy was feeling his oats amidst
> 30,000-plus students, and the professors from whom he took up the
> challenge to think "outside the box." He prided himself on his
> independence of thought, and like you, revisited the Bible. He found
> it did not square with what he was learning in Biology 101.
Still stuffing the strawman, assuming several things about said
strawman's character
that cannot be known, should I add another 5? I will, brings the
total
to 12.
> Like many liberals he assumed the mantle of bravery by speaking out in
> class. He 'spoke to power'-the ultimate power you might say. (But we
> know who else did that; he figures prominently in a poem by John
> Milton.) So whenever we came to a passage that alluded to religious
> faith Sammy would add to class discussion by declaring it "poppycock."
> He boldly used the same word on papers.
Villification of Liberals, association with Satan...So lets take it
to
14
> I tried to be charitable. I asked Sammy to address the concerns in
> more scholarly language. I marked his papers for diction. ("Poppycock"
> is too colloquial, I wrote.) I asked him to reconsider his assessment
> of all Christians as stupid and bad.
> I thus avoided getting into a heated debate on religion in that public
> university, a place where the only debates on religion allowed in the
> classroom are about the various degrees to which Christians are wrong,
> stupid, and bad.
Ah because "Chrisitan are a persecuted minority" lie. 15
> This young man, like you, Sam Harris, put his faith in science.
Misdirection/redefining "faith" 16
> I
> believe that he, like you, equated goodness with the absence of
> suffering. Although he carried a pinched, sour expression, he did not
> strike me as anyone who would deliberately harm another. He probably
> was a vegetarian.
Throwing out some other hopefully "hateful" things to associate him
with the loony left(ooh he was a vegetarian and he didn't look happy,
ooohhh) 18
> Mr. Harris, you charge us Christians with holding back scientific
> research on stem cells that you insist could alleviate suffering. You
> charge us with crimes against humanity by our concern over
> "blastocysts," clumps of cells, unable to feel pain, much less
> consciousness--according to science. Indeed, you present all the
> progress of science up to this point in the twenty-first century as
> the model that should replace religion, which you call superstition,
> as the basis for ethics. Use science to help humanity is your cry.
> But this was a motto used throughout the twentieth century by other
> "bold" thinkers who thought for themselves; there were many around in
> the 1930s. I don't want to charge you with plagiarism, but I have not
> found one statement in your little tract that differs in any way from
> their points of argument.
> You seem to put an incredible amount of faith in science, Mr. Harris.
> But many before you did too. Were you aware that at one time a group
> of scientists fancied themselves on the cutting edge for their belief
> in the science of phrenology, or the assessment of character by skull
> size, shape, and topology? These men presented scientific papers on
> their clinical work, which involved fondling and measuring skulls. I
> am quite surprised, Mr. Harris, that you would put so much faith in an
> endeavor whose base of knowledge changes on a daily basis. Think back
> to all the scientific theories of even a decade ago that have been
> surpassed. Think about how we scoff at the foolish scientific ideas of
> our father's and grandfather's times.
Ahh, invoking the third reich, always a good attention getter, and
bring up the concept of "junk science" which scientific method weeds
out...very boldfaced We now take it to 20.
> You have a degree in philosophy, I see, but were you aware that
> science as a mode of thought came about through monotheism?
So VERY VERY VERY wrong. Science has nothing historicaly to do with
montheism.
21
> You see,
> the idea of a single creator made it possible for human beings to view
> creation as separate from spirit.
22
> And thus humanity advanced from one
> that believed that spirits lived in trees and rocks to one that
> believed that one Creator created this intricately marvelous world we
> live in.
23
> The scientific endeavor then became one where individuals
> observed and studied various aspects of this creation. That is called
> science.
24
> That is what was presented to my son's Cub Scout troop by a chemistry
> professor and a Christian (and not of the moderate or liberal
> persuasion of your approved list). After amazing the boys and
> fulfilling their natural little-boy pyromania proclivities with shows
> of bubbles, bangs, and mini-explosions over Bunsen burners, the
> professor presented them this carry-away thought: though they might be
> impressed by the magic that he performed they should remember the
> greater magic that made all that possible to begin with.
> I thought you might enjoy that little story, Mr. Harris.
> And since science changes, or as you like to think, progresses, I
> wonder what you would say if science, forty years from now, when you
> are nearing 80, would find some use in the cells or organs of 80-year-
> old men for the benefit of those much younger and of more use to
> society?
Ahh slippery slope of the majorly unbelievable kind Brings us to 25
> You feel that an ethical system can be based on the feelings of
> empathy that have evolved in us. You share your colleague Peter
> Singer's view. Singer, Ira DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton
> University, gushes with sympathy for little piglets-to the point where
> he thinks the healthy ones should be allowed to live, while the
> handicapped month-old baby should be put out of its misery. He begins
> his argument, as he necessarily must, by doing away with Biblical
> principles and law: the idea that we are formed in God's image, and
> therefore are above animals. He, like you, thinks that Christian
> proscriptions-like those against killing babies or having sex with
> animals--are just so much "poppycock."
If you have one view colose to a loony, you must share all
views...another lie...26
> You answer your critics about the atheism of twentieth-century
> dictators: "Christians like yourself," you write, "invariably declare
> that monsters like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot,
> and Kim Il Sung spring from the womb of atheism. While it is true that
> such men are sometimes enemies of organized religion, they are never
> especially rational."
> But would you hold up Professor Singer as an example of a rational
> person? How about the other respected professionals-the doctors and
> professors--who wrote academic and policy papers on their new-found
> procedures of gassing "idiots" and "imbeciles" in Germany? The method
> went through its testing phase in teaching hospitals on subjects who
> were too young or too retarded to be deemed rational enough to "live a
> life worth living." Hitler then grasped onto this idea of "scientific
> advancement" and applied the procedure on a massive scale to other
> groups, as we know. While you deem Hitler "delusional," what about the
> doctors who gassed three-year-olds? What about Professor Singer, who
> feels that euthanasia is appropriate for infants-if their parents make
> that "choice"?
Slippery Slope, Guilt by Hitler, Guilt by Association...29
> What words of comfort would you give to the father of the three-year-
> old child dying from leukemia (as some, in spite of the advances of
> science, still do). Would you advise him to euthanize the child to
> prevent suffering (being as tender-hearted as you are)? Would you
> explain that this is natural selection?
Appeal to emotion...30
> You pride yourself on your belief in equality, in democracy, and point
> to the "barbarism" of the Old Testament in its treatment of women and
> slaves (though you didn't bother to research the translation of the
> term "slave" from a more general one meaning "servant" and the
> Biblical reference to slavery as an historical fact that Christians
> had to deal with, and not something they promoted).
Redefining games...31
> But did you know
> that historically Christianity was the first real democracy?
BLATANT LIE, the Greek democracy? 2000BC?...32
> Yes, even
> secularists and "progressives" admit that.
33
> It is a widely accepted historical fact.
34
> But I notice that your little book,
The adjective "little" and it intent on demeaning noed...ad hom...35
> displayed prominently in the
> bookstore chains, even among the suggested "holiday" reading of the
> last Christmas season, has been flying off the tables.
Guilt by association...the whole "holiday" and war on xmas bullshit
associated with it....36
> It entered the
> New York Times bestseller list almost immediately and remains at #3 on
> Publishers Weekly Religion Bestsellers.
> I have seen the customers who fondled your book and read the jacket
> with self-satisfied expressions. These were the ones you blessed as
> "progressive" in your pages. Your condemnatory letter was not
> addressed to them. Your little tome at $16.95 graces their bookshelves
"Little" as ad hom condecention again, and somehow the cost has
something to do with it(red herring)? 38
> along with those by Bill Moyers and the atheist authors you recommend.
> These progressives proudly display their reading material as they
> serve canapés and cocktails to similarly correct-minded, nipped and
> Botox-ed activists, who only really just want what is good for us.
Guilt by Association and nice automatic stereotype...40
> Your slim, easy-to-read pamphlet is just right for trips to the salon,
> masseuse, and transcendental meditation retreat. Your fans cluck over
> the ignorance and benightedness of those like me-their gold and
> diamonds shining in the ambient light of their converted warehouse
>condos. You amaze them with your profundity, your ability to string
>together clichés and tired arguments, and in 91 small widely spaced
>pages tear down the foundations of the civilization put in place by
>millennia of thinkers and the Church Fathers. For your book, they
>whipped out the credit cards from Louis Vitton bags.
CAN YOU POSSIBLE PUT MORE CLICHES IN THIS? We'll just account for all
the "guilt by association steretypes" as one, and the foundation of
civilization were but in place by Greek philophers, not church
fathers...so lie...42
>They also paid to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and thought it
>was a documentary.
It was. A very biased one...but it was a documentary...43
43 Falsehoods, logical errors, or misrepresentations. You have a PHD?
Hatter
Rockinghorse Winner
>>
> The lie of religion is very comforting, but very fragile. They are
> afraid, deep down, that this God thing is Bullshit,
What is there to be afraid of? If there is no God, I've been disillusioned,
that is the extent of it. I think atheists have a *lot* more to fear,
because the consequences of their decision are so much greater, don't you
agree?
and that any
> breeze may knock over the house of cards. Since theism is based on
> irrationality....rationality is not a good tool for its defence; they
> know this also. Therefore an irrational defence of an irrational
> concept is the best for their circumstance.
>
> Hatter
>
*R* *H*
Christopher A.Lee
<rockin...@deadtime.com> wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Hatt...@gmail.com had the audacity to say that:
>
>>>
>> The lie of religion is very comforting, but very fragile. They are
>> afraid, deep down, that this God thing is Bullshit,
>
>What is there to be afraid of? If there is no God, I've been disillusioned,
>that is the extent of it. I think atheists have a *lot* more to fear,
>because the consequences of their decision are so much greater, don't you
>agree?
Don't be so fucking stupid. Why aren't you terrified of the Islamic
Hell? Or being reincarnated as a maggot? Or Hades? Or any of the other
punishments from all the other religions?
Then why should we worry about your exact equivalent?
John Baker
<rockin...@deadtime.com> wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Hatt...@gmail.com had the audacity to say that:
>
>>>
>> The lie of religion is very comforting, but very fragile. They are
>> afraid, deep down, that this God thing is Bullshit,
>
>What is there to be afraid of? If there is no God, I've been disillusioned,
>that is the extent of it. I think atheists have a *lot* more to fear,
>because the consequences of their decision are so much greater, don't you
>agree?
Do you worry about Niflheim?
panam...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Hatte...@gmail.com had the audacity to say that:
>
>
>
> > The lie of religion is very comforting, but very fragile. They are
> > afraid, deep down, that this God thing is Bullshit,
>
> What is there to be afraid of? If there is no God, I've been disillusioned,
> that is the extent of it. I think atheists have a *lot* more to fear,
> because the consequences of their decision are so much greater, don't you
> agree?
No.
There is a possiblility that many people making the argument you just
did (known as "Pascal's Wager) frequently forget.
You may be worshiping the wrong god. You would suffer along with those
of us who don't believe at all, should you get to the Pearly Gates and
find them guarded by Thor. OTOH, the complete lack of evidence
(measurable, not "personal") for gods leads me to believe that there's
no need to worry at all.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
bob young
Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
> In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Hatt...@gmail.com had the audacity to say that:
>
> >>
> > The lie of religion is very comforting, but very fragile. They are
> > afraid, deep down, that this God thing is Bullshit,
>
> What is there to be afraid of? If there is no God, I've been disillusioned,
> that is the extent of it. I think atheists have a *lot* more to fear,
> because the consequences of their decision are so much greater, don't you
> agree?
.......no and neither does Emmett, have a read, his final line encapsulates the religionist
mindset, don't you agree?
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human concern, and
intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot begin to understand. And yet
it is more than this. Atheism is not an old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in
fact it is not, and never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is
magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
bob young
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
good point
Rockinghorse Winner
>
>
>
> "Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human concern, and
> intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot begin to understand. And yet
> it is more than this. Atheism is not an old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in
> fact it is not, and never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is
> magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
> madness."
> [Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
Freedom for what?
What are the actions that atheism leads an atheist to perform, qua atheist?
I cannot see that atheism leads one to one moral behavior over another
without an overlying moral judgment that has nothing to do with atheism.
Now, it leads to greater and greater control over the natural world,
through technology and the advancement of physical science, no doubt. But it
is up to the *good* as opposed to the merely proficient or knowledgeable to
use this technology in a humane manner.
We've seen what can happen when technology gets into the wrong hands.
Rockinghorse Winner
My comparison was between atheism and Christianity, since that is my
religion. That's as far as the argument goes. But if you'd like to drag in
other religion's claims, I'll only say that you still have more to fear w/o
any horse in the race.
Christopher A.Lee
<rockin...@deadtime.com> wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, bob young had the audacity to say that:
>
>>
>>
>> "Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
>>
>>> On 16 Aug 2007 19:59:49 GMT, Rockinghorse Winner
>>> <rockin...@deadtime.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Hatt...@gmail.com had the audacity to say that:
>>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >> The lie of religion is very comforting, but very fragile. They are
>>> >> afraid, deep down, that this God thing is Bullshit,
>>> >
>>> >What is there to be afraid of? If there is no God, I've been disillusioned,
>>> >that is the extent of it. I think atheists have a *lot* more to fear,
>>> >because the consequences of their decision are so much greater, don't you
>>> >agree?
>>>
>>> Don't be so fucking stupid. Why aren't you terrified of the Islamic
>>> Hell? Or being reincarnated as a maggot? Or Hades? Or any of the other
>>> punishments from all the other religions?
>>>
>>> Then why should we worry about your exact equivalent?
>>
>> good point
>>
>>
>
>
>My comparison was between atheism and Christianity, since that is my
>religion. That's as far as the argument goes. But if you'd like to drag in
>other religion's claims, I'll only say that you still have more to fear w/o
>any horse in the race.
Don't be so fucking stupid.
You were idiotic enough to limit your stupidity to Christianity. Which
is merely one of the world's thousands of religions - all of which are
merely somebody else's wacky belief to everybody except their own
believers.
In other words no different than yours.
>
>
>
>*R* *H*
John Baker
<rockin...@deadtime.com> wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, bob young had the audacity to say that:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human concern, and
>> intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot begin to understand. And yet
>> it is more than this. Atheism is not an old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in
>> fact it is not, and never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is
>> magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
>> madness."
>> [Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
>
>Freedom for what?
Not freedom *for* anything. Freedom *from* an insidious mind virus
that causes otherwise (presumably) intelligent human beings to try to
force reality to fit within the framework of some primitive belief
system or other.
>
>What are the actions that atheism leads an atheist to perform, qua atheist?
>I cannot see that atheism leads one to one moral behavior over another
>without an overlying moral judgment that has nothing to do with atheism.
Or with theism either, for that matter.
>
>Now, it leads to greater and greater control over the natural world,
>through technology and the advancement of physical science, no doubt. But it
>is up to the *good* as opposed to the merely proficient or knowledgeable to
>use this technology in a humane manner.
>
>We've seen what can happen when technology gets into the wrong hands.
Yes we have, but what's to be done about it? If there's any potential
at all for misuse, someone will discover it and take advantage of it.
That hasn't changed in thousands of years, and isn't likely to any
time soon.
>
>*R* *H*
Don Stockbauer
John Baker
<donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If an atheist swears on the Bible, can s/he then lie with impunity?
Well, it doesn't seem to stop Christians, does it? <G>
Michael Gray
<donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If an atheist swears on the Bible, can s/he then lie with impunity?
Makes no difference.
Robibnikoff
"Don Stockbauer" <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187672897.2...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> If an atheist swears on the Bible, can s/he then lie with impunity?
Why would they want to "lie with impunity"?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
BRAINIAC
> In article <slrnfc25a1.4tm.rockingho...@deadtime.com>,
> Rockinghorse Winner <rockingho...@deadtime.com> wrote:
>
> > > Any. There is no evidence of a godlike human named Jesus.
>
> > So, if you saw God, say, with your own eyes, you would believe in him?
>
Why would you need to believe in him if you can actually see him?
BRAINIAC
> In article <slrnfc25a1.4tm.rockingho...@deadtime.com>,
> Rockinghorse Winner <rockingho...@deadtime.com> wrote:
>
> > > Any. There is no evidence of a godlike human named Jesus.
>
> > So, if you saw God, say, with your own eyes, you would believe in him?
>
> I might believe in her, but not him.
Sorry forgot to mention "or her" ... my bad :(
mike3
wrote:
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=letter_to_a_s...
>
> Letter to a Stupid Atheist
Looks like the "religious" people also use insults too. Not just
atheists, so neither side seems to have more morals.
FreeThink
wrote:
> In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, bob young had the audacity to say that:
>
>
>
> > "Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human concern, and
> > intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot begin to understand. And yet
> > it is more than this. Atheism is not an old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in
> > fact it is not, and never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is
> > magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
> > madness."
> > [Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
>
> Freedom for what?
Freedom from nothing specified that is being narowed by the the
confines of an atheistic thinker. The freedom garnered by the
exclusion of theism. Freedom from delusion regardless of the topic in
question.
>
> What are the actions that atheism leads an atheist to perform, qua atheist?
> I cannot see that atheism leads one to one moral behavior over another
> without an overlying moral judgment that has nothing to do with atheism.
I agree.
>
> Now, it leads to greater and greater control over the natural world,
> through technology and the advancement of physical science, no doubt. But it
> is up to the *good* as opposed to the merely proficient or knowledgeable to
> use this technology in a humane manner.
Which requires another prerequisite beside "atheism".
>
> We've seen what can happen when technology gets into the wrong hands.
>
> *R* *H*
>
> --
> If only one of Charles Chaplin's films could be preserved, ``City
> Lights'' (1931) would come the closest to representing all the
> different notes of his genius. -Roger Ebert
Ethical definitions require an expanded philisophical definition
greater than the limits of the atheistic one. So what?
Xtrchessreal
wrote:
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=letter_to_a_s...
>
> Letter to a Stupid Atheist
>
>
> Sunday, February 18, 2007
>
> English and currently teaches at a university in Atlanta.
>
> Dear Sam Harris:
>
> I hope you don't mind that I've adapted the title of your bestselling
> pamphlet bound between two hard covers and foisted on to an ignorant
> public as a book. Of course, I am referring to your pretentious Letter
> to a Christian Nation.
>
> those like me who believe in the divinity of Christ and in the truth
> of Bible. Your primary charge against me is holding thoughts and
> beliefs that do not square with yours. You do show some mercy and
> leniency toward those you deem moderate and liberal-those vaguely
> Unitarian, who believe Christ was a cool dude, with some nice ideas,
> who would have gone to peace marches--but not much more. I take your
> upbraiding personally, as I think you intend.
>
> My letter is addressed also to those who fall into the category you
> do. I have seen them-biologists with visibly rising blood pressure at
> college debates, writers of angry rhetoric in "humanist" magazines,
> bitter middle-aged men still chasing skirts, and one college sophomore
> who stands out in my memory among the hundreds of students I have
> taught over the years.
>
> the class was a survey class on early British literature we couldn't
> avoid reading distinctly Christian literature, like religious poetry
> and mystery plays.
>
> Sammy sat towards the back of the class. He was bright and articulate
> and I believe he earned at least a B. Away from parents who apparently
> sent him to church most Sundays, Sammy was feeling his oats amidst
> 30,000-plus students, and the professors from whom he took up the
> challenge to think "outside the box." He prided himself on his
> independence of thought, and like you, revisited the Bible. He found
> it did not square with what he was learning in Biology 101.
>
> class. He 'spoke to power'-the ultimate power you might say. (But we
> know who else did that; he figures prominently in a poem by John
> Milton.) So whenever we came to a passage that alluded to religious
> faith Sammy would add to class discussion by declaring it "poppycock."
> He boldly used the same word on papers.
>
> more scholarly language. I marked his papers for diction. ("Poppycock"
> is too colloquial, I wrote.) I asked him to reconsider his assessment
> of all Christians as stupid and bad.
>
> I thus avoided getting into a heated debate on religion in that public
> university, a place where the only debates on religion allowed in the
> classroom are about the various degrees to which Christians are wrong,
> stupid, and bad.
>
> believe that he, like you, equated goodness with the absence of
> suffering. Although he carried a pinched, sour expression, he did not
> strike me as anyone who would deliberately harm another. He probably
> was a vegetarian.
>
> research on stem cells that you insist could alleviate suffering. You
> charge us with crimes against humanity by our concern over
> "blastocysts," clumps of cells, unable to feel pain, much less
> consciousness--according to science. Indeed, you present all the
> progress of science up to this point in the twenty-first century as
> the model that should replace religion, which you call superstition,
> as the basis for ethics. Use science to help humanity is your cry.
>
> But this was a motto used throughout the twentieth century by other
> "bold" thinkers who thought for themselves; there were many around in
> the 1930s. I don't want to charge you with plagiarism, but I have not
> found one statement in your little tract that differs in any way from
> their points of argument.
>
> You seem to put an incredible amount of faith in science, Mr. Harris.
> But many before you did too. Were you aware that at one time a group
> of scientists fancied themselves on the cutting edge for their belief
> in the science of phrenology, or the assessment of character by skull
> size, shape, and topology? These men presented scientific papers on
> their clinical work, which involved fondling and measuring skulls. I
> am quite surprised, Mr. Harris, that you would put so much faith in an
> endeavor whose base of knowledge changes on a daily basis. Think back
> to all the scientific theories of even a decade ago that have been
> surpassed. Think about how we scoff at the foolish scientific ideas of
> our father's and grandfather's times.
>
> the idea of a single creator made it possible for human beings to view
> that believed that spirits lived in trees and rocks to one that
> believed that one Creator created this intricately marvelous world we
> observed and studied various aspects of this creation. That is called
> science.
>
> professor and a Christian (and not of the moderate or liberal
> persuasion of your approved list). After amazing the boys and
> fulfilling their natural little-boy pyromania proclivities with shows
> of bubbles, bangs, and mini-explosions over Bunsen burners, the
> professor presented them this carry-away thought: though they might be
> impressed by the magic that he performed they should remember the
> greater magic that made all that possible to begin with.
>
> I thought you might enjoy that little story, Mr. Harris.
>
> And since science changes, or as you like to think, progresses, I
> wonder what you would say if science, forty years from now, when you
> are nearing 80, would find some use in the cells or organs of 80-year-
> old men for the benefit of those much younger and of more use to
> society?
>
> empathy that have evolved in us. You share your colleague Peter
> Singer's view. Singer, Ira DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton
> University, gushes with sympathy for little piglets-to the point where
> he thinks the healthy ones should be allowed to live, while the
> handicapped month-old baby should be put out of its misery. He begins
> his argument, as he necessarily must, by doing away with Biblical
> principles and law: the idea that we are formed in God's image, and
> therefore are above animals. He, like you, thinks that Christian
> proscriptions-like those against killing babies or having sex with
> animals--are just so much "poppycock."
>
> dictators: "Christians like yourself," you write, "invariably declare
> that monsters like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot,
> and Kim Il Sung spring from the womb of atheism. While it is true that
> such men are sometimes enemies of organized religion, they are never
> especially rational."
>
> But would you hold up Professor Singer as an example of a rational
> person? How about the other respected professionals-the doctors and
> professors--who wrote academic and policy papers on their new-found
> procedures of gassing "idiots" and "imbeciles" in Germany? The method
> went through its testing phase in teaching hospitals on subjects who
> were too young or too retarded to be deemed rational enough to "live a
> life worth living." Hitler then grasped onto this idea of "scientific
> advancement" and applied the procedure on a massive scale to other
> groups, as we know. While you deem Hitler "delusional," what about the
> doctors who gassed three-year-olds? What about Professor Singer, who
> feels that euthanasia is appropriate for infants-if their parents make
> that "choice"?
>
> old child dying from leukemia (as some, in spite of the advances of
> science, still do). Would you advise him to euthanize the child to
> prevent suffering (being as tender-hearted as you are)? Would you
> explain that this is natural selection?
>
> to the "barbarism" of the Old Testament in its treatment of women and
> slaves (though you didn't bother to research the translation of the
> term "slave" from a more general one meaning "servant" and the
> Biblical reference to slavery as an historical fact that Christians
> that historically Christianity was the first real democracy? Yes, even
> secularists and "progressives" admit that. It is a widely accepted
> historical fact.
>
> But I notice that your little book, displayed prominently in the
> bookstore chains, even among the suggested "holiday" reading of the
> New York Times bestseller list almost immediately and remains at #3 on
> Publishers Weekly Religion Bestsellers.
>
> I have seen the customers who fondled your book and read the jacket
> with self-satisfied expressions. These were the ones you blessed as
> "progressive" in your pages. Your condemnatory letter was not
> addressed to them. Your little tome at $16.95 graces their bookshelves
> These progressives proudly display their reading material as they
> serve canapés and cocktails to similarly correct-minded, nipped and
> Botox-ed activists, who only really just want what is good for us.
>
> read more »
It doesn't really go anywhere. There is no climax it just fizzles all
the way. From an apparent holier than thou perspective but then
reveals her own un-holy thoughts. Her sample of activists at the
salon are more likely the opposite aren't they? Christians at the
salon I mean. Not sure why but I read it all...bored I guess.
Nothing here.
X
BRAINIAC
Well the best time to find morals is in springtime :P
Michael Gray
<witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>"Don Stockbauer" <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1187672897.2...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> If an atheist swears on the Bible, can s/he then lie with impunity?
>
>Why would they want to "lie with impunity"?
Impunity is that stage name of a stripper.
Michael Gray
wrote:
Got yerself a truffle hunting pig?
Michael Gray
Prisons Statistics prove that theists are far less moral than
atheists, to an astounding extent.
•R L Measures
mike...@newsguy.com wrote:
• Indeed, Mike. Tex Watson, Charles Manson's trigger man in the
Tate-LaBianca murders is a born again Christian.
Robibnikoff
"Michael Gray" <mike...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:h6qnc399omfh000o3...@4ax.com...
Oh well, have at it then ;)
BRAINIAC
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:45:36 -0700, BRAINIAC <nour...@hotmail.co.uk>
snout necessary to have a truffle hunting pig. :P
Michael Gray
wrote:
What do you use as a moral compass?
Michael Gray
That may be a demonstrative instance, but is only an example of the
statistical bombshell.
BRAINIAC
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:13:44 -0700, BRAINIAC <nour...@hotmail.co.uk>
Morals can be very elusive, but I usually find mine in deep leaf
litter or close to fallen trees (or is that fallen women - at my age
it's hard to remember). :P
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
•R L Measures
•R L Measures
mike...@newsguy.com wrote:
• Agreed. When I meet someone who announces that he's a Born Again, I
habitually check to see if my wallet is still in my possession.